Why Obama Needs a Mandate

Yeah, i'd like to see an 11th-hour "leapfrog" announcement from Team Obama-Clinton.

I think that would pretty much wrap it up. And the announcement of both Clintons coming on board in High Obama Administration Offices to help retool the economy. I'd say right there's your landslide...

Bill could double as Secretary Of State. Our former allies loved him.

He obviously doesn't "need" a mandate. His campaign _should_ push hard all the way to the end to prevent an upset (which would likely not be solely to some miraculous achievement by the McCain team, but which would also involve complacency or overconfidence by the Obama team). For weeks I've envisioned as the metaphor for this the end of the Olympic 5000 meter final in 1972, the one that featured our own Steve Prefontaine. Your homework, "my friends," is to view a video of the finish of that race, not to observe Prefontaine, but specifically to see the "kick" (elevated pace at the end of a distance race that transitions ultimately to the final sprint to the finish) by the winner, Lasse Viren. The Obama team ideally ought to seek to be an equally impressive machine-like phenomenon.


As to 1980, that's been claimed here before, and it's wrong -- the more childish Bush-hatred on this site no doubt is responsible for this (in addition to more general immaturity). It's more like 1996 and Dole and the GOP for you more grown-up libs and Dems this year (but with a _good_ candidate this year, unlike Dole), to which we can add a large measure of GOP-leaning voters who might continue their behavior we saw in the 2006 elections. It's not as broad and not as deep in 1980. But it is fair to wonder how an Obama win over McCain will compare against Reagan's re-election in 1984, which is the standard currently being used by most people. (I'm also again wondering if Obama will get at least 62 per cent of the popular vote, which defines a true supermajority and for that matter, qualifies as a "mandate.")

Obama's "kick" already is set up with that big ad blitz. Let's see if his team does it ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=laYn7SV2__U

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGT1xUX3jhs


(Unfortunately for McCain, nobody sees him as the equivalent of a gusty Prefontaine!)

Sorry, Sil. You have to settle for the dual-Clinton limelight-stealing opening-act production yesterday at Scranton.

Everyone, here's one other video link for you. Enjoy. All you kids, you will stare at the old-fashioned numerals on the screen. Way before your time...

http://www.runnerspace.com/video.php?do=view&vi...

That Obama gets 62% of the votes are doubtful, but I wonder if all the end of an election campaign so intense, there is no disruption of parts as being pulled off a scandal to kill the ineptitude of his opponent. An analysis of conscience can vote for someone who preaches loyalty and confidence improved economic condition when he first pulled on a low shot to get on top?

That Obama gets 62% of the votes are doubtful, but I wonder if all the end of an election campaign so intense, there is no disruption of parts as being pulled off a scandal to kill the ineptitude of his opponent. An analysis of conscience can vote for someone who preaches loyalty and confidence improved economic condition when he first pulled on a low shot to get on top? www.acquisizionelavoro.it

Senator Obama already has a "strong mandate".

Read the New York Times editorials the day after every election/inaugural since 1980.

Whenever a Republican wins . . . even when Ronald Reagan won every state but one in 1984 . . . the Grey Lady specifically declares that this election did not represent a mandate in any way, shape or form.

When Bill Clinton won . . . even on a plurality, against Bush/Perot; or in 1996, when he ran a very conservative campaign thanks to Morris, with his major campaign plank being school uniforms . . . the New York Times decreed it a strong mandate for change in the United States.

Obama's "strong mandate" has already been written. . . and is sitting on Keller's and Collins' desks at this very moment . . . pending last minute insertions decrying specific examples of Republican racism, divisiveness etc.

Marlowe's last comment makes me wonder how much of "liberal" bias is the traditional "new york" bias or "coast" bias. Anyone who follows sports knows that according to many sports writers a sport's importance and popularity depend coincidentally on how the New York team is doing. (Sometimes a couple other large metro media centers play a role as well.) For years, writers lambasted the NBA despite strong revenue, competitive games, and highly skilled players mainly because the Knicks sucked and you saw "boring" teams like the Spurs versus the Suns. The idea of a Subway Series lights sports journalism afire, when it isn't that much of a deal outside the NYC metro are. Basically, since the reporters live around NY and the people around them aren't excited, they can't help but feel the sport isn't exciting.

Similarly, NY-based media often don't see any excitement in a Republican candidate's victory because they live in NY where most of the people they know are not excited either.

Pacatrue, your comment/analogy here is very interesting!

I never thought of the analogy of politics with sports in this regard, but it does seem to hold water.

As Pacatrue notes, anyone who follows various sports has encountered the bizarre phenomenon where excellent series and competitive games have been met with yawns by the major MSM because they do not involve major centre (NYC, Chicago, Boston, LA) teams. This bias has, equally frequently, resulted in pissed off fans in insignificant cities with great teams.

In political terms, this echoes the classic Pauline Kael comment of mystified amazement after Richard Nixon's election: "But nobody I know voted for him."

Perhaps Pacatrue has a point, with this MSM bias may be due as much or more to geographic "atmospherics" -- these centers having a mostly Democratic demographics -- as to conscious bias.

Pacatrue -- with ESPN, it's New York-centered (even a non-sports guy like me can spot this immediately), but with the media and politics, it's New York-and-Washington-centered (and sometimes more broadly, in other major metros with large liberal populations and political clout, which include Chicago and Los Angeles, sometimes given the demeaning New-York-centered name, still, "satellites").

The bias is due to the nature of who congregates in the media, government, and academia, the obvious political preferences of journalists and editors (which is how the media lean, not the stereotypical other direction expected of media _owners_).

It's like when Nixon won and someone was quoted: "I don't know anybody who voted for him" even though more voted for than against the man long ago.

Marlowecan: The classic example in sports is of the greatest sports organization in history, the San Francisco Forty-Niners under De Bartolo, between his acquisition of the team and his removal from things due to, ahem, legal problems several years later.

When the Niners first got good, once that year they faced a game against the New Orleans Saints and were down 35-0 at halftime. They came back to win the game! Yet because they weren't one of the important (read: Eastern) teams, they weren't even featured in that week's highlights on ABC Sports. Coach Bill Walsh made a remark about how the league was a closed club with established elites expecting the "other" teams to be nothing but food for the "important" teams to feed on, and Walsh expressed displeasure with that notion. Later that year Walsh and others were meeting with other "important" people from "important" (read: Eastern) places, and Walsh ran into Howard Cosell, who was ugly toward Walsh: "Just who the hell do you think you are?"

We all found out who Walsh and the Niners were, then and for years afterward.